podcast 17 – Lewis vs. Rogers 1 – opening statements

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS

On September 9,  2013, Reformed Christian apologist Anthony Rogers debated Islamic apologist Shadid Lewis. The debate question was: Are trinitarians polytheists? (Entire video here.)

I think this debate is worth thinking through carefully. In this podcast series, I’m breaking up the debate into three listenable chunks. I’ve also slightly shortened the audio by removing some dead air, etc., but I have not deleted a single word by the two debaters. I will end with a podcast evaluating their arguments. Each episode will also have a blog post wherein I try to accurately summarize and formulate some of the arguments. This episode: opening statements.

Rogers starts off with a problem for his opponent, which I think is best put as an inconsistent triad:

1. Trinitarian Christians are polytheists.
2. The Qur’an implies that Christians are not polytheists.
3. Everything the Qur’an implies is true.

Rogers’s argument is that is opponent is committed to 1 and 3. But he hasn’t noticed that he’s also committed to 2. His views, then, are inconsistent. Rogers will deny 1 (and 3), so he has no problem. But Shadid must, inconsistently, commit to all three. But from any two of them, it logically follows that the remaining claim is false. (Go ahead, try all the combinations.)

In support of 2, Rogers offers:

• Muslim men can marry Christian women (5:5),  but they can’t marry polytheistic women. (2:221)
• Muslims can eat food prepared by Christians (5:5), but not by polytheists (6:121).
• 22:17; 98:1, 6; 2:105; 5:82; 3:186; and a hadith from Muhammad imply that no Christian is a polytheist.

On to his positive case, Rogers affirms monotheism. But he adds that both Moses and Jesus, who were both monotheists, also taught that God is multipersonal, as so their monotheism implied multiple “persons” in the one God.

Argument 1:

1. Genesis 19:24 mentions two persons called “Yahweh.”
2. Therefore, Genesis 19:24 implies that there are at least two persons or beings “in God.” (This confirmed when the Targums say call the “YHWH” on earth the Memra (Word) of YHWH.)

Argument 2:

1. In John 8, Jesus says “I am,” and so claims to be the eternal, divine Son who appeared to Abraham. (Also John 1, 20:28.)
2. [But John also teaches that the Father is an eternal, divine person, who is different than the Son.]
3. Therefore, John teaches that there are at least two persons “in God.”

Argument 3: Matthew 28:19 implies that the three named are distinct yet all “are” one God.

Argument 4: I didn’t catch this one on the first couple listens, but Mr. Rogers seems to be also offering an argument like this:

1. Jesus and Moses taught monotheism, and “multiple persons in God.”
2. [The teachings of Jesus and Moses regarding the one God are self-consistent.]
3. Therefore, monotheism and “multiple persons in God” are compatible.

On to Mr. Lewis’s opening statement. First, he accurately defines polytheism and trinitarianism. Then a lot of what he says, I think, comes down to this first main argument:

1. If the Trinity doctrine is true, Jesus is a god.
2. If Jesus is a god, then he is a different god than his Father.
3. Therefore, if the Trinity doctrine is true, then polytheism is true. (1, 2)
4. Polytheism is false.
5. Therefore, the Trinity doctrine is false.  (3,4)

3 does follow from 1-2, and 5 from 1-3. The argument is valid, and it would seem that his opponent grants 1 and 3.

But why accept 2? He’s got a supporting argument for 2.

1. [For any x and y, if x differs from y, then x and y are not the same god.]
2. Jesus and his Father differ.
3. Therefore, Jesus and his Father are not the same god.

To back up 2 in the supporting argument, Lewis points out that Jesus, but not God (aka the Father) has a god, calls someone else “the only true God”, doesn’t know something, calls out to God from the cross,  increased in wisdom, and was raised and exalted by God, where Stephen saw him by God’s side.

And some of those same texts, he argues, shows that the first premise of this second main argument is true.

1. Father and Son are not equal, i.e. equally divine.
2. [But if Father and Son aren’t equally divine, the Trinity doctrine is false.]
3. [So, the Trinity doctrine is false]

Again, the argument is valid. And his opponent grants 2. And 1 is supported, Lewis argues, by the Bible.

Finally, Lewis wonders if Christians are saying that God not a being, but a group, like the government. Surely, Lewis urges, we shouldn’t say that.

Should we?

You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.

You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)